Project completion report (PCR) : in-country management development, project 497-0317

Due to a change in GOI policy, the DOMT was split into a Department of Manpower (DOM) and a Department of Transmigration (DOT) during the second project year. The project financed short-term (3-5 months) overseas training for 41 instructors (24 from DOPW, 10 from DOM, 7 from DOT) in management skills and theory; these trainees in turn trained a cadre of 107 new instructors during in-country training of trainers (TOT) workshops. In addition, the departments conducted three types of management training workshops: (1) General Seminar Series (GSS) - focused on general management skills/knowledge, and covering such topics as communications, problemsolving, and management by objectives; (2) Project Management Course (PMC) - a course correlated to a particular project and given on request; and (3) Maintenance Course (MC) - a follow-up to GSS and PMC workshops. The combined total of GSS, PMC, MC, and TOT workshops numbered 300. Also, a management group of 24 trainers (whose activities are now well known in educational and training centers throughout the country) was formed within the DOPW, and the DOT produced and disseminated to the other two departments video programs on management behavior and skills. The axiom that management training is insufficient in itself to effect institutional change was verified in this project, which made only minimal progress in meeting its institutional objectives. This failure was due to, inter alia: (1) lack of high-level support; (2) lack of staff participation in efforts to improve organizational effectiveness/efficiency; (3) excessive concern with the number rather than the quality of those trained; and (4) lack of follow-up to help trainees integrate their training into their work. Despite a high rate of innovation and application of new management technology within each training center by the teams of instructors, there remained deficiencies in communication between course participants and their supervisors, as well as between the training centers and high-level officials. This was due in part to exaggerated expectations for the improvements to be generated by the project; when these expectations failed to materialize, the programs and their instructors lost credibility.